Support NeoGAF

[IbizaPocholo]

Shorter games at full price ‘isn’t the way we should go’, says Outriders director | VGC

People Can Fly developer says AAA games should offer players “value for money”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

Speaking to VGC in a recent interview, director Kmita explained that the design of Outriders reflected his belief that AAA titles have an obligation to deliver value to players.

“Let’s be honest: games are not super cheap, so we have to give value for the money that people are paying,” he said. “Games that are short but still full price… I think that is not the way we should go in the industry overall.

“We are a good example, because we are trying to deliver not a ‘game as a service’ but a finished product. We are doing the game that we strongly believe will be fair for the players.”

He added: “For the amount of money players will pay for it they will receive a lot of hours of a fun experience, with an endgame that will make it possible to enjoy the game even more. And that’s what I’m expecting as a player too, from other companies.”

Speaking at the Gamelab Live conference in June, former PlayStation exec Layden referred to a common theory that development costs have doubled with every new console generation, and claimed that current-gen games had reached between $80m and $150m for most AAA games. “The problem with that model is it’s just not sustainable,” he said. “I don’t think that, in the next generation, you can take those numbers and multiply them by two and think that you can grow.”

On Layden’s comments, Kmita said: “Of course, you are right: there are these huge companies doing extremely expensive games, but the way I see it, those games are also very profitable for them, so they cannot complain.”

The Outriders director went on to say that he isn’t a fan of entertainment that’s artificially extended with “filler” content and claimed his game would not suffer from the issue.

There’s a difference between “the game being too long because it had filler, or if you did not have time to enjoy it,” he said.

“I hate at the moment that some games or TV series are adding filler just to make something longer, that’s what I hate. I personally have been in a totally different position: I had to chop almost 70 percent of the things I had in my head for this game.

“So I hope people like this game, because we want to stay in this world and have a lot of ideas for what to do next. I’m not in this situation where I have not enough and had to put filler content in, no! That’s not our approach.”

He added: “We knew that different people would approach Outriders from different angles. Some people would like to have hundreds of hours of content for grinding loot, but we knew that not everyone would have the time for it and would prefer to enjoy the story.

“We hope those who choose to play just the story will enjoy the game and not feel cheated that it was too short or shallow.”

 

[Thugnificient]

The problem isn’t video games length. The problem is the fact their budget have quadrupled, yet we’re still playing the same games as the PS3/360 era except with better graphics and production values. That’s especially true of AAA games.

 

[Rikkori]

The problem isn’t video games length. The problem is the fact their budget have quadrupled, yet we’re still playing the same game as the PS3/360 era except with better graphics and production values. That’s especially true of AAA games.

Huh? And did the market not grow also? You can't just look at one or two factors in isolation and ignore everything else. Fact is companies are making more money than ever, and the production value increases (which require higher budget) also helped spur those revenues.

Plus, without those extra production values what would many AAA games really have to offer? They're already recycling gameplay from decades ago and offering NOTHING MORE than just prettier graphics as extra. The most egregious example being obviously Gears, and I don't hate it for it, don't get me wrong, but if you look at it it's offering you the same gameplay it did when it launched just with different art & a bigger graphics budget. And ofc, TLOU 2 for Sony is no different either, though we could really lump everything ND does in that category.

No one's making these companies do that, they are free to innovate and create small budget games that pop off, like what happened with mobas, like what happened with card games, like what happened with battle royale, like what happened with auto-battlers, like what will keep happening.

The simple fact is - they're shit at innovating and the best they can do IS just to give you the same game with prettier graphics. But that's on them. The reason their game budgets keep exploding is that they simply can't compete in any other way.

 

[ZywyPL]

Fully agree. I can name very few games which justify being 60$, like CoD, Witcher 3, GTA5 etc. games that do offer tens, hundreds of hours of gameplay, multiple game modes and so on, whereas titles like Vanquish that is a 4h SP game for 60$ are a bad joke,. Most games don't deserve more than 15/20/30/40$.

 

[Thugnificient]

Huh? And did the market not grow also? You can't just look at one or two factors in isolation and ignore everything else. Fact is companies are making more money than ever, and the production value increases (which require higher budget) also helped spur those revenues.

Plus, without those extra production values what would many AAA games really have to offer? They're already recycling gameplay from decades ago and offering NOTHING MORE than just prettier graphics as extra. The most egregious example being obviously Gears, and I don't hate it for it, don't get me wrong, but if you look at it it's offering you the same gameplay it did when it launched just with different art & a bigger graphics budget. And ofc, TLOU 2 for Sony is no different either, though we could really lump everything ND does in that category.

No one's making these companies do that, they are free to innovate and create small budget games that pop off, like what happened with mobas, like what happened with card games, like what happened with battle royale, like what happened with auto-battlers, like what will keep happening.

The simple fact is - they're shit at innovating and the best they can do IS just to give you the same game with prettier graphics. But that's on them. The reason their game budgets keep exploding is that they simply can't compete in any other way.

All of what you said pretty much elaborates on what I said and share my thoughts so I’m not sure if we disagree or not.

 

[UnNamed]

The definition of "shorter games" is meaningless, since modern AAA games are super diluted, most of the time you go from A to B doing nothing or repeating the same boring missions.

Old arcade games were less than a hour long, but they were super dense, and you took several weeks to beat them, not counting the replayability.

 

[Gavin Stevens]

A games length isn't so much the issue, its padding. Its useless, bullshit, boring as fuck padding.

I don't need an open world the size of the moon if all you're going to do is fill it with fetch quests and a few towers. I would much rather have a smaller contained world. Hell, I don't even need my games to be open world. Half-Life Alyx wasn't open world, and I never once felt like it would have been better for it.

Make the damn games smaller with more meaningful content. Don't just add 900 fucking apples to the world and make you collect them calling it "content". Anybody can randomly place a marker on a map...

 

[DetectiveBananas]

While this effects the new release section, has it really mattered to most of us here? Since console games typically fall in price drastically in the 6 months to year after the release date. I’ve read hundreds of posts of people who say they wait for games to fall to the $20-30 price point.
Now PC ports charging $60 for years after is another thing all together...

 

[rofif]

I am fine with 8-12 hours games. I don't want to always feel like "oh well, I will have to spend the next 2 weeks playing this 30h giant

 

[Northeastmonk]

Video Games are also the medium where $60 gets you more hours of entertainment than books, movies, and TV. You get way more value out of a $60 Video game versus a $20 movie, a $15 book, or watching a 30-60 minute long TV episode. No one put a time to beat on a video game, but it’s good when you have the story fresh in your mind.

Replay value really helps. If a game is good, but it’s just cut scenes. It’s hard to warrant another playthrough. It’s better If they can maximize gameplay and still keep a story going. You can pick up and take a break from Dark Souls-type Games. They retain the same qualities of when you first start the game. I also like it expansions too. The Witcher 3 is good and you can play the expansion and they automatically make you a level 30.

Games like Dark Sector, Heavenly Sword, The Darkness, Enslaved, and etc were fun. I just didn’t necessarily want to replay them. I sold them at the time due to wanting to play another game. It’s hard to decide what to play months later. That 10-12 hour $60 game was good, but you realize you already got your money’s worth. If there’s stuff to go back to then it’s a lot better. I keep games like The Witcher and Dark Souls because I do want to replay them. It all depends on what you want out of it. I can’t play a 30-40 hour Watch Dogz game because it doesn’t interest me. Adding hours should mean something. If it’s just boring side missions then it’s not really fun. It’s just stuff for the trophy hunter or the person wanting 100% on everything. I don’t enjoy getting 100% of a game’s content. I enjoy the main story and my time in the world. I think it all depends on the developer’s creativity.

 

[luffie]

The problem isn’t video games length. The problem is the fact their budget have quadrupled, yet we’re still playing the same game as the PS3/360 era except with better graphics and production values. That’s especially true of AAA games.

You just swallowed the nonsense given by the top executives.
Guess what? They are still making record profits, and executives are still bringing home millions per year, and what do they do? They fire even more staffs and blame it on you.

If video games aren't raking in profits, they wouldn't be making it, period. Any additional earnings made by increasing the game price will not go into development but executives pockets.

 

[Thugnificient]

You just swallowed the nonsense given by the top executives.
Guess what? They are still making record profits, and executives are still bringing home millions per year, and what do they do? They fire even more staffs and blame it on you.

If video games aren't raking in profits, they wouldn't be making it, period. Any additional earnings made by increasing the game price will not go into development but executives pockets.

I understand what you’re saying but I’m uncertain why you seem to be implying I am part of the problem.

 

[Fuz]

The definition of "shorter games" is meaningless, since modern AAA games are super diluted, most of the time you go from A to B doing nothing or repeating the same boring missions.

Old arcade games were less than a hour long, but they were super dense, and you took several weeks to beat them, not counting the replayability.

This.

100 hours of collecting feathers? NO THANK YOU

 

[sonomamashine]

As long as the quality is there i have no problem with that, long lenght AAA games quality droped since 360/PS3 era (budget they say) which is BS and still make huge profits from poor quality games, look at Rockstar huge budget - huge gains.

 

[Stilton Disco]

Modern games are bloated monstrosities padded out with tedious busy work, scrounging for crafting materials and RPG like progression that gates off many gameplay features through the need for grinding.

Combined with the overabundance of open world games with huge areas of contentless open, effectively empty space, and i long for shorter games that simply compress the actual fun and content into a well crafted and continuously enjoyable experience.

 

[Rudius]

There has to be an intermediate were budget, length and quantity are optimal. Many games today are too big for my taste. The Last of Us part 2 for example is 2 times longer than I thought.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Bang for your buck is the only thing that matters, game's aren't measured by play time, expectations for games like Zelda, and Horizon are 20+ hour campaigns anything else is a drop off.

 

[Pizdetz]

For single player non open world games they should focus more on replay ability and tangible changes at higher difficulties. Devil may cry is a good example.

 

[Heart_Attack]

The problem that no one wants to talk about is that there a ton more games being released each week/month/year that the chances for success for a development studio are slim to none. You can't blame it all on the rising cost of technology and labor. The competition for your dollar is insane. Why should people give a shit about your game? The argument for raising the price on games is stupid, and will only benefit those AAA studios that already report record profits.

 

[PlayerPurple]

Huh? And did the market not grow also? You can't just look at one or two factors in isolation and ignore everything else. Fact is companies are making more money than ever, and the production value increases (which require higher budget) also helped spur those revenues.

Plus, without those extra production values what would many AAA games really have to offer? They're already recycling gameplay from decades ago and offering NOTHING MORE than just prettier graphics as extra. The most egregious example being obviously Gears, and I don't hate it for it, don't get me wrong, but if you look at it it's offering you the same gameplay it did when it launched just with different art & a bigger graphics budget. And ofc, TLOU 2 for Sony is no different either, though we could really lump everything ND does in that category.

No one's making these companies do that, they are free to innovate and create small budget games that pop off, like what happened with mobas, like what happened with card games, like what happened with battle royale, like what happened with auto-battlers, like what will keep happening.

The simple fact is - they're shit at innovating and the best they can do IS just to give you the same game with prettier graphics. But that's on them. The reason their game budgets keep exploding is that they simply can't compete in any other way.

Why would you expect publishers to take risks and innovate more in the AAA space when the current business model makes that foolish to do?

If game budgets have tripled (at least) since 2005, but we’re still paying the same $60, that means higher sales are necessary just for games to be profitable. But given how much the market has also grown, that’s where the problem is:

Before, making more money meant making a better product. Make better designed games and push the medium forward. This was good for both publishers and gamers.

Now, making more money just means selling to as many people as possible. Recycling tried & true gameplay that casual gamers will love (and pay the same $60 for) is more important than innovation. This is good for the publisher, but ultimately bad for gamers.

If core gamers truly want innovation to return to AAA, we should be willing to pay more for them. Because right now, our money is just as important as casual gamers’, and they greatly outnumber us.

 

[hemo memo]

Apparently they didn’t get the message. You’re supposed to complain about players entitlement and the reason you should increase the price because of the increasing in budget.

Don’t talk sense please dev. Only anti-consumer practices here.

 

[Belmonte]

Fully agree. I can name very few games which justify being 60$, like CoD, Witcher 3, GTA5 etc. games that do offer tens, hundreds of hours of gameplay, multiple game modes and so on, whereas titles like Vanquish that is a 4h SP game for 60$ are a bad joke,. Most games don't deserve more than 15/20/30/40$.

Vanquish is a masterclass in TPS design though. The amount of thought there are in its mechanics and encounter design make it one of the most replayable games in the PS360 gen. It is not a 80h+ odyssey but a highly dense gameplay masterpiece.

Edit
Why it is great:

 

[Rikkori]

All of what you said pretty much elaborates on what I said and share my thoughts so I’m not sure if we disagree or not.

You're right, my bad, for some reason my mind didn't parse what came after 'budgets have quadrupled' properly.

Why would you expect publishers to take risks and innovate more in the AAA space when the current business model makes that foolish to do?

I don't.
But because they don't compete like that I have no sympathy for the Ladyens of the world whinging about increasing dev costs either. Luckily games are one of the few true open markets in the world, so whatever happens I'm okay with - even if it means everything gets filled with P2W bs. If the market's okay with that, I'm okay with that, because I know for a fact there's plenty of money left on the table for more niche and not mtx-ridden games as well. It's just not gonna be in the form of the AAA/AAAA games.

 

[Knitted Knight]

Solid take.

 

[Arachnid]

Agreed. RE3 being 4 hours was unacceptable. Even RE2 with its 8 hours isn't enough. 60 dollar games should be 12 hours at a minimum, and even that is pushing it.

Then you have the gamers who complain a moderate length game is too long, like with TLOU2 recently or Alien Isolation (TLOU2 clocked in at 27 hours for me, and that was on full exploration with max difficulty; AI came in at 19 hours for a first playthrough on normal). Neither of those games are long. They're decent lengths for single player experiences, and exactly what I want going forward for full price titles. I'll never understand those who advocate for getting less for their money. Replayability is nice, but it should NEVER be the focus (not counting genres like roguelikes, or strategy games like Civ of course). Most people play through these titles once or twice. It's ridiculous to expect players to play through more than that and build your entire game around it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Prices in gaming have already stratified. I can get high-end indies + discounted AAA in the $10 - 30 range and rarely have to pay more than that. I think AAA devs should just charge $80 and be honest about what is on offer. Those who want the blockbuster experience will pay it. Those who don't need to play the game at launch will enjoy it a year later at half the price.

 

[PlayerPurple]

I don't.
But because they don't compete like that I have no sympathy for the Ladyens of the world whinging about increasing dev costs either. Luckily games are one of the few true open markets in the world, so whatever happens I'm okay with - even if it means everything gets filled with P2W bs. If the market's okay with that, I'm okay with that, because I know for a fact there's plenty of money left on the table for more niche and not mtx-ridden games as well. It's just not gonna be in the form of the AAA/AAAA games.

I'm a bit confused because you began your post implying that AAA developers can innovate but choose not to ("no one's making these companies do that..."), but then ended it by saying they don't innovate because they're incapable ("they're shit at innovating") and recycling old gameplay's their only option ("they simply can't compete in any other way").

I guess I'm more inclined to believe the former. AAA developers seem more than capable of innovating; we just haven't seen much of it lately because that's not where the money is. To me, the business model's the problem, not the developer. We could easily get innovative games with AAA production values if we showed publishers that we're willing to pay more for them (in ways that casual gamers won't).

 

[Rikkori]

I'm a bit confused because you began your post implying that AAA developers can innovate but choose not to ("no one's making these companies do that..."), but then ended it by saying they don't innovate because they're incapable ("they're shit at innovating") and recycling old gameplay's their only option ("they simply can't compete in any other way").

I guess I'm more inclined to believe the former. AAA developers seem more than capable of innovating; we just haven't seen much of it lately because that's not where the money is. To me, the business model's the problem, not the developer. We could easily get innovative games with AAA production values if we showed publishers that we're willing to pay more for them (in ways that casual gamers won't).

They can choose to, but they don't, so they're gonna be bad at it, because without experience ofc they're gonna be bad at it. Therefore they recycle old gameplay. Does that mean they could never start & become better at it? Ofc not.

It's also not just about the market paying for "innovative" games, it's also that by its very nature innovation is very difficult to achieve (not to mention quite subjective for games) and therefore a very risky endeavour - something antithetical to the economics of a AAA studio.
Plus, in gaming, it doesn't really pay to be that innovative. For a AAA studio it makes more sense to rely on indies/AA (which can take a bigger risk and can't afford the other route) to come up with something new & then adapt that with a bigger budget.

And lastly, the majority doesn't want just new stuff all the time either, they want something familiar but with a twist. So you could never have enough people buy "innovative" AAA just for the sake of it so that that market exists and can buffer all the attempts it would take for a successfully innovative AAA game to make it. Nor should they. In the end everyone's getting what they want for the most part (excluding super-specific requests at the individual level).

 

[SleepDoctor]

Its why i keep my gamefly subscription. Like 90% of games aren’t worth the $60 price tag these days.

Before my gcu expired i bought games for the fuck of it. Now I'll rent em first unless im sure its worth its price.

 

[ZywyPL]

Vanquish is a masterclass in TPS design though. The amount of thought there are in its mechanics and encounter design make it one of the most replayable games in the PS360 gen. It is not a 80h+ odyssey but a highly dense gameplay masterpiece.

Edit
Why it is great:

I know it's awesome, one of the very best TPS of the PS360 era, but still, 60 bucks for a game which you can finish on literally a single session after work/school? That was waaay too much, if I remember correctly many people weren't happy back in the day once they got the game and it turned out it's only 4h or so and that's it, 40$ would fit so much better. Like Hellblade, can you imagine that game being 60$? Neither can I. I think most devs/publisher should focus on making the games first, and then judge what should be appropriate price tag once they actually have the finished product, how much content/playtime is there, rather than thinking about the business model before the development even started.

 

[PresetError]

Games like Bioshock or The Last of Us demonstrate single player AAA narrative games don't need to last more than 15 hours to be wildly successful.

Ubisoft sandbox games demonstrate being longer doesn't make games better. Titles like The Witcher 3 and Read Dead Redemption 2 should be the exception, not the norm.

Financially, it's way more profitable selling three 40€ smaller games than one massive 70€ game.

I've said it before, I'm all in for 10 to 15h games. Poeple looking for +100 hours experiences have plenty of multiplayer games to dive into.

Also, part of the problem is too many developers want to be the next GTA V or Skyrim and make the game that prints money forever.

 

[SleepDoctor]

I know it's awesome, one of the very best TPS of the PS360 era, but still, 60 bucks for a game which you can finish on literally a single session after work/school? That was waaay too much, if I remember correctly many people weren't happy back in the day once they got the game and it turned out it's only 4h or so and that's it, 40$ would fit so much better. Like Hellblade, can you imagine that game being 60$? Neither can I. I think most devs/publisher should focus on making the games first, and then judge what should be appropriate price tag once they actually have the finished product, how much content/playtime is there, rather than thinking about the business model before the development even started.

I never understood the praise that game got tbh. I remember downloading the demo, playing it maybe 10 minutes and saying to myself "this is garbage". I deleted it and never looked back. I'd see people praising it everywhere and I don't get why.

As far as the length of the game. I got burned like that with The Order 1886. Bought the collector's edition and all. The leaks of it being 5 hours long came out before release and I didn't believe it lol.

 

[luffie]

I understand what you’re saying but I’m uncertain why you seem to be implying I am part of the problem.

Nah, you are not part of the problem, but just .try not add in to the rhetoric that games need to increase their price, it helps to give their nonsense more legitimacy

 

[ZywyPL]

I never understood the praise that game got tbh. I remember downloading the demo, playing it maybe 10 minutes and saying to myself "this is garbage". I deleted it and never looked back. I'd see people praising it everywhere and I don't get why.

As far as the length of the game. I got burned like that with The Order 1886. Bought the collector's edition and all. The leaks of it being 5 hours long came out before release and I didn't believe it lol.

Vanquish was one of the very few fast paced shooters of that era, bare in mind almost all TPP games back then copied Gears and its cover system, which resulted in a very slow paced gameplays, so Vanquish was a very welcome, fresh change for many many people. But yeah, TO1886 is another prime example of a 60$ game that feels more like a long demo rather than a full standalone game.

 

[Thugnificient]

Nah, you are not part of the problem, but just .try not add in to the rhetoric that games need to increase their price, it helps to give their nonsense more legitimacy

I never even implied that though. I’m arguing the higher budgets and prices don’t make for better game. If anything, I’m against huge budgets because they don’t even guarantee a better product.

 

[theclaw135]

Games today are astronomically longer, and all the worse for it.
Practicing to beat a game like Metroid Fusion in under 2 hours is a more fulfilling experience than 200 hours slogging across Skyrim with no end of the sidequests in sight.

 

[Thugnificient]

Games today are astronomically longer, and all the worse for it.
Practicing to beat a game like Metroid Fusion in under 2 hours is a more fulfilling experience than 200 hours slogging across Skyrim with no end of the sidequests in sight.

I really wouldn't compare these two. RPG's traditionally tend to be much longer games anyway.

I get your point though.

 

[Tsukumo]

Talk is cheap. We'll see what kind of pay off there is behind Outriders once they will show their micro transactions plan for the game.

 

[joe_zazen]

Ideally, I want something i can get lost in for 6+ months, develop some skill, overcome actual challenges, and become part of a community.

sure, they make life hard for reviwers, podcasters, fomo susceptible types who have to play every game, reviewers, etc. But, not my problem.

 

[Starlight Lotice]

There needs to be games of all price ranges dependant on how likely they are to sell.

Everything being $60/£45 is ridiculous. The AAA games can be had for half the price for those who wait, for example.